Michael Everett wrote:Interesting how you only made one interpretation rather than considering that different people think in different ways... and chose a rather obscure interpretation on top of that...TFLYTSNBN wrote:Very funny math joke. You didn't specify if you were doing the calculation in Base 3 or expressing the answer in Base 3. I reasonably interpreted your answer as I indicated....have you ever apologized on this forum? You didn't even spell the word correctly...I don't apologise for not being careful to ensure that my spell checker is not screwing up my already sloppy spelling.Since you have such a fetish for peer review, contemplate these papers:
https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/12/the-list-grows-now-100-scientific-papers-assert-co2-has-a-minuscule-effect-on-the-climate/
...I do not see how my previous posts indicate such a fetish. Please provide the quotes from my previous posts that support such a conclusion or I shall be forced to assume that you are simply projecting.It is obviously futile to attempt to discuss the basic concepts with you. While it is obvious that you do have the basic intelligence and education to understand, it is equally obvious that you are unwilling to consider any information that might conflict with your religion.
I have the basic concepts. I have more than basic intelligence, my education is quite good and I will consider any information that is given to me in a coherent and rational manner. Random links in place of posts do not count.
The issue may be that I try to apply rational cogitation to a problem instead of emotion and expect others to do the same. I look down on those who devolve to strawman arguments, extreme over-simplification and/or insults at the drop of a (metaphorical) hat.
And you still haven't explained why I should be bigoted against you.
In binary:
10 + 10 = 100
Here is a link to a SUMMARY of recent AGW theory:
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/
I do not share the author's alarm but I will eagerly concede that he understands the basic concepts and that there are other factors besides IR emissivity (the greenhouse effect) that effect equilibrium temperature. My greatest disagreement with the author is his stated radiative forcing from CO2. This quantity is predicated on the presumption of positive feedback from water vapor which allegedly magnifies the otherwise trivial effect of CO2. The AGW folks have yet to offer experimental evidence that this effect is real much less quantify it.
That pesky .6 Watts per square meter surplus that it is presumed is to be evidence of net global heating interests me. I suspect that this might be the result of atmospheric escape that which requires enormous energy but isn't considered here. Given the escape velocity of the Earth, approximately 1eex8 Joules is required for every kilogram lost.
There is no accounting for geothermal energy which is usually trivial.
My point here is that there are many factors affecting the Earth's energy balance aside from effective emissivity which is affected by greenhouse gases. Deforestation or desertification, particularly in Africa, can have more effect on global temperatures than CO2 emissions.
If you had been willing to do the math to answer my challenge, you would have noticed some interesting facts.
First, without the greenhouse effect to reduce IR emissivity, the Earth would be frozen over.
Second, the change in temperature resulting from changes in insolation, albado or emissivity is proportional to any changes in these factors raised to the 1/4 power.
As this reference that I cite suggests that the current estimates of net radiative forcing are on the order of 1 Watt per square meter, the estimated probable increase in global temperature should be on the order of 0.2 Kelvin. This is comparable to the temperature increase that people would experience if they moved South by 40 Kilometers.
Finally; you seem to be confusing my accusations of bigotry with accusations of prejudice. The two words are not synonymous but both are confused with racism. While you do not seem to be racist, you obviously harbor prejudgements against Americans, particularly conservative Americans that you ridicule as being "mericuns.". More frustrating and offensive to me is that you stubbornly refuse to consider information that contradicts your beliefs. This is the essence of bigotry.
